- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SCOTUS Opinion Day - June 30
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:03 pm to lionward2014
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:03 pm to lionward2014
2
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:06 pm to Ailsa
Oh shite, @1776General_ said it! Quick, call up the Supreme Court and let them know there's been a mistake!
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:06 pm to Ailsa
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.quote:
Thomas says the constitution does NOT support birthright citizenship for these foreign invaders.
NAILED IT. He previously destroyed the lie of progressivism, which has infiltrated our system to facilitate this invasion
This post was edited on 6/30/26 at 12:07 pm
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:19 pm to Ailsa
quote:
Thomas says the constitution does NOT support birthright citizenship for these foreign invaders.
Very much Kenny Atkinson saying the advanced metrics say they won 2 out 3 games while being down 3-0 vibes.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:20 pm to lionward2014
quote:
Very much Kenny Atkinson saying the advanced metrics say they won 2 out 3 games while being down 3-0 vibes.
Holy shite
Champions of life indeed
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:37 pm to Placekicker
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:40 pm to Ailsa
https://justthenews.com/government/white-house/trumps-efforts-reverse-birthright-citizenship-can-succeed-or-without-scotus
This post was edited on 6/30/26 at 12:46 pm
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:43 pm to Ailsa
quote:
The Supreme Court is expected to rule Tuesday in Trump v. Barbara, a high-stakes challenge to President Donald Trump's 2025 executive order that seeks to restrict automatic birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment for children of illegal immigrants and temporary visa holders. In the event the court rules against Trump, a number of Congressional Republicans have legislation pending that could practically accomplish what a different ruling would have done.
quote:
Posted on 6/30/26 at 12:40 pm to Ailsa
Posted on 6/30/26 at 1:01 pm to Ingeniero
quote:Justice Jackson should have recused since she doesn't know what a woman is
Holy shite, is this a 9-0 against trannies?
Posted on 6/30/26 at 1:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's sad that his dramatic emotional-partisan shift at the end of his storied career is going to define so much of his legacy.
Would you prefer he be remembered as the Silent Justice, who never spoke in oral argument and just signed his name onto Scalia's opinions?
Posted on 6/30/26 at 1:36 pm to LawTalkingGuy
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. Apparently, Kavanaugh needs to take some CLE from a Lake Charles family lawyer who clearly knows better.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 1:36 pm to BrownLeft Shoe
If one wanted to protect this country one could interpret that “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does not contemplate someone’s parents illegally crossing the boarder to birth you here.
One could say that one needs to be here legally and not subject to deportation to be subject to the jurisdiction.
But our learned justices apparently think this is too fine of a point and instead grant citizenship based solely on where your bare baby arse drops out. Which does nothing but encourage mass illegal migration coupled with permissions to remain after said baby is dropped.
This country is fricked if this doesn’t change. George Soros is warming up the migration machine again as I type.
One could say that one needs to be here legally and not subject to deportation to be subject to the jurisdiction.
But our learned justices apparently think this is too fine of a point and instead grant citizenship based solely on where your bare baby arse drops out. Which does nothing but encourage mass illegal migration coupled with permissions to remain after said baby is dropped.
This country is fricked if this doesn’t change. George Soros is warming up the migration machine again as I type.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 1:42 pm to BrownLeft Shoe
quote:
Ohh, so allegiance is what matters, someone should try to make that argument in court. We could call it IDK.... sovereign citizen.
Your comment makes no sense.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 8:48 pm to lionward2014
quote:
. Words have meanings, and courts should give those words their common meanings when interpreting statutes.
I can't help but notice that you are unable to provide a meaning. Not even a stupid one that would fit your posting style.
Posted on 6/30/26 at 8:50 pm to Y.A. Tittle
Kitangy wrestles with every simple fact of life!!!!!
Posted on 7/1/26 at 11:32 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
Your comment makes no sense.
Someone trying to make a sovereign citizen argument would claim a court has no authority over them because they didn't consent to the court's authority, therefore they don't have "allegiance" to the court and the country that gives it legitimization. Jurisdiction in the US is solely based off of where you are, either physically or domiciliarly/economically, and/or what is the issue of law for deciding whether state or federal court. Again, I think BRC can be a bad idea if done wrong, but the Supreme Court must just interpret the law, not make new law, and upholding the EO would effectively change the law.
Posted on 7/1/26 at 11:36 am to BrownLeft Shoe
quote:
Someone trying to make a sovereign citizen argument would claim a court has no authority over them because they didn't consent to the court's authority, therefore they don't have "allegiance" to the court and the country that gives it legitimization. Jurisdiction in the US is solely based off of where you are, either physically or domiciliarly/economically, and/or what is the issue of law for deciding whether state or federal court. Again, I think BRC can be a bad idea if done wrong, but the Supreme Court must just interpret the law, not make new law, and upholding the EO would effectively change the law.
Your comment makes no sense, because you don't have to be a citizen to be subject to the authority of the United States. You're conflating jurisdiction and allegiance.
This post was edited on 7/1/26 at 11:38 am
Posted on 7/1/26 at 11:43 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Still wrestling with that pesky definition of ‘woman’ a bit, I’m guessing?
We hear that question a lot on videos of street interviews. But Andrew Doyle checked some articles written by UK political officials giving their definition of a 'Trans.' He published 15 definitions by the experts. All 15 were different.
Posted on 7/1/26 at 1:48 pm to imjustafatkid
Then what point are you trying to make regarding allegiance?
Posted on 7/1/26 at 3:31 pm to BrownLeft Shoe
quote:
Then what point are you trying to make regarding allegiance?
Do you just not understand the English language? It is very clear what the authors of the amendment meant.
Page 10 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News